Murso24 wrote:regarding the comments about " i dont understand why anyone would not want to be able to change the song or pick the one to listen to". has anyone every thought about the name itself? its called "Shuffle" for a reason. not a fancy line dance or a keyword for small. it says "shuffle" and its basic. not to mention the cheapest iPod out there. but look at the name. it says what it does. it shuffles. and thats it. there's no display to navigate.

makes sense to me.....

It isn't so much the lack of a screen that got people all bent out of shape it was the brain dead move of putting the controls on the earbuds that pissed people off.

The iPod Shuffle has always been a terribly over priced music player. Competing products from Sansa and Creative have always been in a similar size bracket, all of which are so small and light it doesn't make sense to go smaller, have always been have the price, and in many cases have always had a screen. The non-Apple products have always provided a great user experience providing an equal level of features and in most cases many more features such as a built in microphone for recording or FM tuning. Products in this price range have almost always been detected as mass storage on computers, so they're usable with or without software in almost every case (though I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes won't do this... like every other software will). Products in this price range have almost always been able to do the shuffle function, in fact I can't think of a case where this wasn't a fact.

Now throw in a control system that violates even everything Apple does. I could understand their moves sometimes. Sacrifice features in order to make sure the consumer doesn't screw up and provide a simple solution. However they've gone against that. They've complicated it greatly AND they've forced people who purchasing headphones/ear phones/IEMs/whatever that will function with the product OR double the size and INCREASE COST by having to purchase a dongle. What happens when you purchase the new iPod and it doesn't function this way? I'm sorry to bunch your panties but Apple has a history of doing this. Just look at their wonderful use of "mini" display plugs on their laptops. Why wouldn't they repeat with this iPod? They will, they have, and will continue to do so.

You know, all companies screw their customers. But Apple is seriously the only company that has people who seem to live and breath their products even after getting the shaft so many times. A friend recently tried to defend the miniDisplayPort plug on the new MacBooks. You know what I did? I pointed to the Ethernet port on the unit and he shut up. You know why? Because the "Apple likes things small" **** is stupid and factually incorrect. DisplayPort is smaller than the Ethernet port, so that argument goes flying out the window. It's the same thing we see here with the iPod Shuffle. Pointless argument because of stupid product worship. It's disgusting.

Hance wrote:It isn't so much the lack of a screen that got people all bent out of shape it was the brain dead move of putting the controls on the earbuds that pissed people off.

While I agree it's not the smartest thing Apple has ever done (and I still reserve judgment, though I don't expect I'll ever put my hands on one; one Shuffle is fine thankyouverymuch), I don't understand why people get, as you put it, "pissed off". It's not like the people that bought 2G shuffles suddenly lost their controls, and it's not like Sansa and Microsoft and Creative (et. al.) are going to follow suit.

Well, I suppose they might. Heh.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

Like I said in the front page, it is because this new one will replace the old 2G one and then there will be no choice. If your 2G shuffle dies, will Apple replace it with the inferior product that is the 3G?

1. Regarding Apple headphones sucking - Most people wouldn't know the difference between a pair of these and some Etymotic customs. Seriously, most people simply do not have golden ears and aren't willing to shell out for aftermarkets. These are "good enough" for 98% of the market and I daresay that they are least the equal of any headphones included with any MP3 player. Besides, we're talking compressed music. High quality headphones just let you hear how bad the compression is in the first place.

2. Regarding the control scheme: It works, it's simple, and it does the EXACT same thing as the old controller did. In fact, the unit does the EXACT same thing as the old one did, it just moves the controller off of the unit itself.

3. Regarding the controller - The concern about it being on the cord instead of the unit itself is valid and I would be more concerned about it from a durability aspect than from anything else.

4. Regarding needing an accessory to use other headphones - as I mentioned above, most people who buy this will never use aftermarket headphones, so this is irrelevant. But for those who will, they know what they are getting into, if that's a deal breaker, they will avoid this. It really is that simple.

Apple is appealling to the mass market on this. It's not meant for the geeks and dweebs that are insistant on all the bells and whistles. There are plenty of other MP3 players that do all that stuff, this unit is not meant to compete with those. It's a simple sub-$100 player that has a lot of limitations, but does what it sets out to do. Are there other sub-$100 players with more features? Heck yes, but they don't have the entire Apple infrastructure (iTunes store, iTunes client, etc.) behind them, which has value to some consumers.

To argue that the Shuffle is a bad product because it doesn't include your favorite little feature or function misses the point entirely. If that's a feature that you must have, THEN THIS ISN'T THE PRODUCT FOR YOU. It really is just that simple. It's a cheap product meant for the masses, not for the audiophile or the gadget geeks here on TechReport. The group responding to this thread, for the most part, do not represent the vast majority of the market.

Like I said in the front page, it is because this new one will replace the old 2G one and then there will be no choice. If your 2G shuffle dies, will Apple replace it with the inferior product that is the 3G?

The assumption that this product is "inferior" isn't really supported by the facts. It does the exact same thing as the original product. The question if the changes to the control mechanism makes it inferior is a value decision that would depend on the owner.

Like I said in the front page, it is because this new one will replace the old 2G one and then there will be no choice. If your 2G shuffle dies, will Apple replace it with the inferior product that is the 3G?

Oh, we all know that the day the new shuffle came out, everyone else that ever produced or thought about producing a digital audio player got out of the market simultaneously. The idea of "no choice" is ridiculous, even for people using OS X - anything that shows up as a flash drive and allows you to copy files to the drive will work.

And no, when my 2G shuffle croaks, I don't intend to go with another display-less audio player. I'll probably go with a Nano, if I haven't bought an iTouch by then.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

Like I said in the front page, it is because this new one will replace the old 2G one and then there will be no choice. If your 2G shuffle dies, will Apple replace it with the inferior product that is the 3G?

The assumption that this product is "inferior" isn't really supported by the facts. It does the exact same thing as the original product. The question if the changes to the control mechanism makes it inferior is a value decision that would depend on the owner.

It is inferior in that it removes features that a decent amount of the userbase used on the 2G and it doesn't add anything.It can only be a value decision if there is a choice. With Apple, the 3G will supplant the 2G, and thus there is no choice for getting a shuffle.

This thing is aimed at gymrats, not people like me that want to use it in the car, and it adds double the storage.

Even for gym rats I think it sucks. You have the poor fitting head phones that will probably end up coming out of your ears during a work out. They don't block sound like decent in ear models do so you have to turn them up louder which really isn't very good for your hearing.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:It is inferior in that it removes features that a decent amount of the userbase used on the 2G and it doesn't add anything.It can only be a value decision if there is a choice. With Apple, the 3G will supplant the 2G, and thus there is no choice for getting a shuffle.

It retains the full functionality of the original and adds voice feedback. Whether or not the change in the location of the controls is "inferior" or not really depends on the user's perspective and is not an objective quality. Most of the audience this is targeted at probably won't really care at all.

What other manufacture keeps a superceded product in their lineup? Why should Apple be any different? This really makes no sense at all. If this product doesn't sell as well as the old one, then I am certain that Apple will look at feedback and make changes, just like every other company does. But the last thing any company wants to do is to compete with itself.

Thresher wrote:It retains the full functionality of the original and adds voice feedback.

Not being able to use anything-but-stock headphones does not equate to "full functionality" I should also state that the voice-over thing is a cool idea for a product like this. I don't know that I would like it personally, I could see how some would so I'm not going to condemn that.

Thresher wrote:It retains the full functionality of the original and adds voice feedback.

It does not retain full functionality. I can use my head phones with the old shuffle and it will work fine. With the new shuffle I can't. Explain to me how thats full functionality would you please.

Again, 99% of the people who are in the market for this thing will use the stock headphones, for those that want to use their own, the option exists by using an accessory. So perhaps, for that 1% or so that uses their own headphones, there might be slight additional fee, but the functionality remains unchanged.

Thresher wrote:So perhaps, for that 1% or so that uses their own headphones, there might be slight additional fee, but the functionality remains unchanged.

As I discuss earlier in this thread, when I use my Shuffle while running or lifting weights, I route the headphone cable underneath my shirt, thus concealing the cable (and a dongle) almost completely. Unlike your contention, I argue that functionality would be changed, because I would not be able to access the controls. I have seen numerous other people at my gym use their Shuffle in a similar fashion. I am not saying that I represent a majority of Shuffle users (and since I started this thread, I have purchased a Sansa Clip and am moving on with my life ). However, I still think the new Apple design is needlessly simplistic to the point of substantially reduced functionality (and added cost).

We shall see how the mass market responds. I suspect that the 4th generation Shuffle (or Nano hybrid) will have controls directly on the unit.

Hance wrote:Even for gym rats I think it sucks. You have the poor fitting head phones that will probably end up coming out of your ears during a work out. They don't block sound like decent in ear models do so you have to turn them up louder which really isn't very good for your hearing.

I hate in-ear headphones as a general rule. I have this irrational fear that they're going to get stuck in my ears or cause deafness or something. But you could always wear earmuffs to keep them on.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

Thresher wrote:It retains the full functionality of the original and adds voice feedback.

It does not retain full functionality. I can use my head phones with the old shuffle and it will work fine. With the new shuffle I can't. Explain to me how thats full functionality would you please.

Again, 99% of the people who are in the market for this thing will use the stock headphones, for those that want to use their own, the option exists by using an accessory. So perhaps, for that 1% or so that uses their own headphones, there might be slight additional fee, but the functionality remains unchanged.

3 points:1/ Do you have a source for that 99%? I'd probably peg it more at 60-70%2/ No adapter currently exists. Similar to the mini-display-Port on the laptops, is that adapter available yet?3/ "Slight additional fee". Considering we are talking about an $80 product, even $10 would be a 12.5% of the cost of the product. Since 3-rd parties will have to pay a licensing fee, it's not like we are going to be able to see things all that cheap from other companies as well.

Hance wrote:Even for gym rats I think it sucks. You have the poor fitting head phones that will probably end up coming out of your ears during a work out. They don't block sound like decent in ear models do so you have to turn them up louder which really isn't very good for your hearing.

I hate in-ear headphones as a general rule. I have this irrational fear that they're going to get stuck in my ears or cause deafness or something. But you could always wear earmuffs to keep them on.

Hance speaks the truth. The default Apple phones come out for me when I jog. Plus hitting a button on the player is a lot easier for me than hitting a button on the earbuds whilst jogging.

Been available since OCTOBER. All I did was google "mini display port DVI" or "mini display port VGA" and it's like...i dunno...the first link. And you'll say "oh, I didn't know" or "I was just asking" but what you're really trying to do is spread FUD, as if such an adapter for the headphones will never come out.

And I think your percentage of people who stick with the stock headphones is needlessly low, although I don't believe it's 99%, either.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:3 points:1/ Do you have a source for that 99%? I'd probably peg it more at 60-70%2/ No adapter currently exists. Similar to the mini-display-Port on the laptops, is that adapter available yet?3/ "Slight additional fee". Considering we are talking about an $80 product, even $10 would be a 12.5% of the cost of the product. Since 3-rd parties will have to pay a licensing fee, it's not like we are going to be able to see things all that cheap from other companies as well.

1. Other than myself, I haven't seen anyone with an iPod who wasn't using a pair of white headphones. Might be other brands used with them, but anecdotally, I'd have to say the vast majority of users stick with the default headphones. 2. Apple says the adaptor is coming, so I would have to stick with that.3. Again, for the vast majority of consumers, the headphone adaptor is going to be unnecessary. For the folks willing to shell out a ton for extra headphones, what's another 10-20 bux? Especially compared to the low cost of entry in getting the iPod.

Honestly, you guys are WAY over thinking this thing. It's a cheap iPod. It's not an audiophile device and was never meant to be. For most consumers, that's just fine. Don't think just because it doesn't include your pet features that the most people won't be perfectly happy with it. If you need a reminder, please remember that lots of TR readers thought the original Shuffle was dead in the water because it didn't have a screen on it. There was a hue and cry that this would never work and that people just HAD to have a screen.

And yet they sold. Lots of them apparently.

Not everything Apple does is a hit out of the park, but given the rather mild changes that you are carping about (moving the controls and requiring a dongle for using third party headphones) that will affect a very small portion of the market, I doubt that sales will suffer.

I wish Apple would give a more broken-down detail of what families sell in what quantities. Prior to the iPod days, they'd report "X desktops and Y portables" and only mention specific models (such as the original iMac) if it was particularly rosy. Now they just ship "X Macs and Y iPods and (possibly) Z iPhones". It'd be easier to quantify the impact if they published "X iPod Classics, Y iPod Touches, Z iPod Nanos, and W iPod Shuffles" and then look month over month.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

Why are "gymrats" paying double what they need to then? If they only need a product that does basic functions and clips then why not buy the cheaper Sansa product? It makes no sense. All arguments on this product to support it are complete rubbish.